Gender in EU Conflict Prevention and Peacebuilding Policy and

Gender in EU Conflict Prevention and Peacebuilding Policy and

Gender in EU Conflict Prevention
and Peacebuilding Policy and
Practice
María Villellas, Pamela Urrutia
Ana Villellas, Vicenç Fisas
Escola de Cultura de Pau
Colophon
GENDER IN EU CONFLICT PREVENTION AND PEACEBUILDING
POLICY AND PRACTICE
31 March 2016
Version 1.1
Deliverable 2.2: Scoping Study on Gender
María Villellas, Pamela Urrutia, Ana Villellas, Vicenç Fisas
Escola de Cultura de Pau
Whole of Society Conflict Prevention and Peacebuilding
This scoping study was produced as part of the project “Whole of Society Conflict Prevention and Peacebuilding”,
which aims to enhance the EU’s peacebuilding and conflict prevention capabilities.
This paper is part of the first series of orientation papers that were intended to indicate lines of inquiry and propose
research questions, as a basis for discussion and input for the project's Theoretical and Methodological Framework.
They seek to provide an overview of scholarly knowledge about the EU’s capabilities and means for conflict
prevention and peacebuilding in relation to several cross-cutting themes and clusters that the project focuses on.
More information at www.woscap.eu
This project is funded by the EU’s Horizon 2020
Research and Innovation Programme
Grant agreement no. 653866
This document only reflects the views of the author(s), and the EU is not responsible for how the information may
be used.
Contents
Executive summary ..................................................................................................................................................... 2
1.Introduction .............................................................................................................................................................. 4
2. Gendering the EU: from equal pay for equal work to the WPS agenda .................................................... 5
3. EU policy on gender, peace and security .......................................................................................................... 7
4. EU actors on WPS ............................................................................................................................................... 10
5. Gender, peace and security in EU interventions .......................................................................................... 12
5.1 Gender and multi-track diplomacy ................................................................................................................ 12
5.2 Gender and security sector reform ............................................................................................................... 14
5.3 Gender and governance reform .................................................................................................................... 16
6. Conclusions........................................................................................................................................................... 18
Annex 1: Research questions ................................................................................................................................ 19
1) How and where is gender mainstreamed? .................................................................................................... 19
2) How do women and men take part in the work? ........................................................................................ 20
Bibliography............................................................................................................................................................... 21
1
Executive summary
This scoping study examines integration of the gender dimension and the women, peace and
security (WPS) agenda into the field of conflict prevention and peacebuilding in the European
Union (EU), an emerging area in EU foreign policy and in the literature, that has thus far
received little scholarly attention when compared to the studies on gender integration in other
EU policy areas. Firstly, it briefly reviews the evolution of gender mainstreaming in the EU and
the development of the global WPS agenda led by the UN and followed by the EU. Secondly, it
summarises and analyses EU policy concerning the policy framework on women/gender, peace
and security. Thirdly, it covers the actors involved in the implementation of this policy
framework. After this general overview, the fourth section analyses the policy and practice of
the EU in its approach to multi-track diplomacy, security sector reform and governance reform
from a gender perspective. Finally, in the conclusions, this study identifies key issues and
research directions in this area. This paper focuses mainly on the EU policy objectives and
discourse regarding these areas of intervention.
The adoption by the EU of the gender mainstreaming strategy in the 1990s gave
impetus to the incorporation of gender in its foreign policy, since it committed the organization
to making gender equality an objective in all its policies. Its integration into its conflict
prevention and peacebuilding efforts was influenced by the UN-led WPS agenda, which
provided an important framework of reference from which the EU developed its own policies
and instruments.
The EU has developed an ambitious and comprehensive policy framework on
WPS/gender, peace and security that involves all EU actors and areas of action (mainly political
dialogue, funding programming and CSDP missions and operations) in mainstreaming gender in
conflict prevention and peacebuilding. The backbone of EU policy on WPS consists of
Comprehensive approach to the EU implementation of the United Nations Security Council
Resolutions 1325 and 1820 on women, peace and security (CA 1325) and key documents on
implementing the UNSCR as part of the CSDP. The EU has also developed its own architecture
of actors that combines specific functions to support gender throughout the organization (e.g.
EEAS Principal Advisor on 1325, the informal Task Force on UNSCR 1325, and gender advisors
and gender focal points) and that makes gender mainstreaming the responsibility of all actors
(EU institutions and EUMS).
This gender comprehensive approach has permeated EU’s interventions in areas such as
multi-track diplomacy, SSR and governance reform and has strengthened the EU’s capacities in
the area of conflict prevention and peacebuilding as it constitutes a foundation for promoting
more inclusive and sustainable processes.
Regarding the inclusion of gender in EU interventions, in the case of multi-track
diplomacy, CA 1325 commits the EU to adopting specific measures like support for women’s
participation through diplomatic and financial means, an increase in the number of women
mediators and chief negotiators and support for local women’s organisations in peace
processes. In relation to SSR, the CA 1325 (2008) specifies areas where the EU should pay
attention: identification of security needs, inclusion of women in relevant institutions,
investments in infrastructure to attend to victims of gender-based violence, strengthening of
women’s participation, and access to justice, among others. With regard to gender responsive
2
governance, the CA 1325 stresses that transition periods provide opportunities to create new
systems of governance and urges that special attention be paid to protecting the rights of
women and eradicating discrimination, to supporting women in processes of reconciliation, and
to women’s participation in political decision-making.
The literature has detected many gaps and challenges to these directives, such as the
gap between commitments and implementation or the gender imbalance in the top positions.
There is also a need for greater coherence and coordination between EU institutions and the
EUMS and a risk of isolation between the WPS agenda and the general conflict prevention and
peacebuilding agenda. Simultaneously, some reductionism has been detected in the EU when
translating and implementing the global WPS agenda by focusing mostly on the security sector,
while neglecting other areas. Other more specific shortcomings include insufficient clarity and
guidance on how to mainstream gender in the various areas and levels of action. All of these
challenges point to possible future lines of research for the EU.
Regarding the WOSCAP project, the scoping study identifies important connections
between the gender perspective and the WPS agenda of the EU and other cross-cutting
approaches such as local ownership processes. This raises questions about inclusiveness, intersectionality and accountability. At the same time, the EU’s WPS agenda acknowledges the need
for multi-lateral relationships with other international, regional and local stakeholders, leading to
questions about the degree of multi-stakeholder coherence in practice regarding WPS
implementation. In turn, the EU’s gender mainstreaming strategy involves all stakeholders and
areas of action, including civilian-military relations. Finally, the study on the WPS agenda in the
EU raises questions about the role of ICTs in preventing conflict, the gendered impacts of the
use of ICTs, the EU’s level of support for ICTs as a useful tool for implementing the WPS
agenda, and for EU visibility and public diplomacy regarding WPS. All of these issues are
relevant to the WOSCAP project.
3
1.Introduction
This scoping study examines integration of the gender dimension and the women, peace and
security (WPS) agenda into the field of conflict prevention and peacebuilding in the European
Union (EU), an emerging area in EU foreign policy and in the literature, that has thus far
received little scholarly attention when compared to the analysis of gender integration in other
policy areas. Firstly, it briefly reviews the evolution of gender mainstreaming in the EU and the
development of the global WPS agenda led by the UN and followed by the EU. Secondly, it
summarises and analyses EU policy concerning the policy framework on women/gender, peace
and security. Thirdly, it covers the actors involved. After this general overview, the fourth
section analyses the policy and practice of the EU in its approach to multi-track diplomacy,
security sector reform and governance reform from a gender perspective. Finally, in the
conclusions, this study identifies key issues and research directions in this area. This paper
focuses mainly on the EU policy objectives and discourse regarding these areas of intervention.
According to the definitions used by the EU, gender refers to “socially constructed
differences, as opposed to the biological ones, between women and men; this means
differences that have been learned, are changeable over time and have wide variations both
within and between cultures”,1 and gender mainstreaming is the “(re)organisation, improvement,
development and evaluation of policy processes, so that a gender equality perspective is
incorporated in all policies at all levels and at all stages by the actors normally involved in
policy-making. Gender mainstreaming cannot replace specific policies that aim to redress
situations resulting from gender inequality. Specific gender equality policies and gender
mainstreaming are dual and complementary strategies and must go hand in hand to reach the
goal of gender equality”.2
1
The EU uses a definition of the DG Employment and Social Affairs from 1998 (One Hundred Words for Equality: a
glossary of terms on equality between women and men).
2
The EU uses the Council of Europe’s definition:
http://www.coe.int/T/E/Human_Rights/Equality/02._Gender_mainstreaming/
4
2. Gendering the EU: from equal pay for equal work
to the WPS agenda
This section will revise the literature that traces the integration of gender in the EU and its
evolution leading to the integration of gender in conflict prevention and peacebuilding EU
policies in relation to the emergence of the global WPS agenda.
The integration of gender in the EU has been studied by different feminist scholars
(Abels and Mushaben, 2012; Weiner and MacRae, 2014; Kantola, 2010; Lucarelli, 2014; Rees,
1998; Booth and Bennett, 2002; Locher, 2012), though is somewhat nascent with regard to
conflict prevention and peacebuilding in EU foreign policy (Martinelli 2014). The widespread
classification of authors like Rees (1998) and Booth and Bennett (2002) identifies three main
approaches to integrating the gender equality agenda in the EU: equal treatment/opportunities,
positive action and gender mainstreaming.
Authors like Locher and Prügl (2008) and Kantola (2010) have highlighted the expansion
of the gender agenda in the EU from an initial focus on equality in the workplace. The adoption
of the gender mainstreaming strategy in the 1990s gave impetus to the incorporation of
gender in the area of foreign policy – initially in development (Carbone and Lister, 2006) –
since it committed the EU to making gender equality an objective in all its policies (Martinelli,
2014). In turn, its integration into the EU’s conflict prevention and peacebuilding efforts was
influenced by the UN-led WPS agenda, which provided an important point of reference from
which the EU developed its own policies and instruments (Martinelli, 2014; Barnes, 2011). This
field is receiving increasing attention in the literature, albeit still scarce and fragmented when
compared with other dimensions of EU gender policy such as internal policies. Some authors
have focused on missions and operations (Valenius, 2007; Batt and Valenius, 2006; Gya, 2007;
Olsson and Sundström, 2012; Olsson et al 2014), while others have studied the process of
integration of the WPS agenda into the EU foreign policy (Barnes, 2009; 2011) or have
provided overviews of the current situation (Martinelli, 2014; Gya, 2010), including the latest
developments and recommendations (Martinelli, 2015). Their findings and conclusions are dealt
with throughout this scoping study.
The literature highlights that the adoption of United Nations Security Council Resolution
1325 on Women, Peace and Security (UNSCR) in 2000 marked a turning point and gave rise to
the international WPS agenda (Hill, Aboitiz and Poehlman-Doumburga, 2003; Cockburn, 2007;
Shepherd, 2008; Cohn, Kinsella and Gibbings, 2004). Resolution 1325 recognises women’s
right to participate actively in peacebuilding and in preventing violent conflict, as well as to be
included in areas of decision-making and peacekeeping missions, while underscoring women’s
and girls’ specific needs of protection in situations of armed conflict. The WPS agenda
establishes four basic pillars of action: participation, protection, prevention, and relief and
recovery. The international WPS agenda consists of UNSCR 1325 and seven additional UNSC
resolutions that extend, complement, specify and operationalise content and concepts of
UNSCR 1325: 1820 (2008), 1888 (2009), 1889 (2009), 1960 (2010), 2106 (2013), 2122
(2013) and 2242 (2015).
A selection of some of the most important WPS literature shows how some authors
have studied issues related to its implementation, specific impacts and challenges (Olsson and
5
Gizelis, 2015; Hudson, 2013; Olonisakin, Barnes and Ikpe, 2011; Shepherd, 2014; Pratt and
Richter-Devroe, 2011), as well as different aspects of the WPS agenda from global
perspectives (Cohn, 2013; Anderlini, 2007). Others have tackled specific issues like women’s
participation in peace processes and the inclusion of gender in peace agreements (O’Reilly, Ó
Súilleabháin and Paffenholz, 2015; Bell and O’Rourke, 2010; Bell, 2013; Chinkin, 2003), sexual
violence (Leatherman, 2011; Cohen, Hoover Green and Wood, 2013; Skjelsbæk, 2010) and
peacekeeping (Kronsell and Svedverg, 2012; Puechguirbal, 2014), among others.
A common conclusion shared by many authors is that the significance of the adoption
of UNSCR 1325 has not been matched with effective gender mainstreaming in peacebuilding
policies globally (Olsson and Gizelis, 2015; Shepherd, 2014). The WPS agenda continues to be
weak in terms of policy and implementation despite increasing global support by multiple actors
(Hudson, 2013). Different authors agree that a vision of women as victims of conflicts
continues to prevail, reinforced by the predominance of sexual violence in this agenda since
2008 (Puechguirbal, 2010; Pratt and Richter-Devroe, 2011; Shepherd 2013). This vision would
connect with the traditional essentialist representation of women in conflicts and the persistent
association of gender and women, that neither the 1325 nor the WPS agenda have challenged
enough (Puechguirbal, 2010). However, parallel to this critical view, there is academic
recognition of the importance of UNSCR 1325 for women peacemakers' organisations
worldwide in terms of visibility, empowerment and legitimacy (Pratt and Richter-Devroe, 2011;
Miller, Pournik and Swaine, 2014). Thus, scholarly research agrees in identifying a tension
between, on the one hand, recognising evidence of some progress toward a more gendersensitive and inclusive perspective in the design of conflict prevention and peacebuilding
policies and, on the other, the realization that the agenda is more rhetorical than actually
capable of influencing and transforming prevailing practices and policies (Olsson and Gizelis,
2015).
Especially relevant is the recent Global Study that represents the most comprehensive
review to date of the implementation of UNSCR 1325 and provides many relevant conclusions
as well as evidence regarding the importance of gender for conflict prevention and
peacebuilding (Coomaraswamy, 2015). The Global Study acknowledges the many challenges
that persist for this implementation, the most notable of these being:
§
A large amount of the progress “continues to be measured in ‘firsts’ rather than
as a standard practice”
§
Sexual violence continues to be severely under prosecuted and that there is not
enough evidence to prove that normative frameworks have acted as a deterrent
for future acts of violence
§
Women are hugely underrepresented at all levels and that peace processes and
peacekeeping missions are the two most challenging areas in terms of equal and
meaningful participation
§
The rise of violent extremism and counter-terrorism policies have a severe
impact on the lives of women
§
The lack of funding for the WPS agenda remains a primary obstacle
(Coomaraswamy, 2015).
6
3. EU policy on gender, peace and security
Following UN’s efforts, various regional and international organisations have developed policy
frameworks and mechanisms related to the WPS agenda. This section will tackle how the WPS
agenda has been integrated in EU policy documents. The EU policy framework on WPS
commits the EU to promote the role of women in peacebuilding and gender mainstreaming
(including men and women) in all actions abroad, including in conflict prevention and
peacebuilding efforts. All fields of external action are engaged in this effort of promotion,
including political dialogue, funding through various instruments, especially the Instrument
contributing to Stability and Peace (IcSP), and Common Security and Defence Policy (CSDP)
missions and operations. This section deals with how the WPS agenda has been integrated in
EU policy documents.
The literature emphasises that the WPS agenda was slow to start in the EU. Despite
various previous measures, it was not until 2005 that the EU made a significant commitment to
UNSCR 1325 (Barnes, 2011; Leinonen, 2010), which was reflected in an operational paper by
the Council related to the ESDP. A more sweeping approach to translating the UN’s WPS
agenda to the European context was not adopted until 2008 (Barnes, 2011), through approval
of the Comprehensive approach to the EU implementation of the United Nations Security Council
Resolutions 1325 and 1820 on women, peace and security (referred to hereafter as CA 1325).
This establishes definitions, principles and measures based on a holistic approach that
recognises the relation between peace, security, development and gender equality. CA 1325
forges a strong link between the CSDP and other instruments of foreign policy like
development cooperation, political dialogue and EU action within the UN (Leinonen, 2010). It
establishes a triple approach, integrating WPS issues into its political and policy dialogue,
mainstreaming a gender equality approach in its policies and activities, especially in crisis
management and development cooperation, and lending support to specific strategic actions
aimed at protecting, supporting and empowering women. Those suggested actions include
consultations and cooperation with local and international actors promoting women’s rights;
support to the development of NAPs by third countries; promotion through political dialogue of
implementation of UNSCR1325; support to women’s participation in peace processes; gender
training, among others.
The backbone of EU policy on WPS consists of CA 1325 and key documents on
implementing the UNSCR as part of the CSDP (Gya, 2011; Leinonen, 2010), an area that has
received greater attention in the EU. The Council has approved several operational papers in
this regard, including Implementation of UNSCR 1325 as reinforced by UNSCR 1820 in the context
of ESDP (2008) and Implementation of UNSCRs on Women, Peace and Security in the context of
CSDP missions and operations (2012). With them, the EU pledges to incorporate gender in the
entire cycle of missions and operations, from prior analysis and preparatory phases to the
conduct of the missions, monitoring and evaluation. The recent Council Conclusions on CSDP
(2015) strengthens this gender mainstreaming process. Attention has also been given to
training, lessons and best practices in missions and operations.
7
CA 1325 mandated the Task Force on UNSCR 1325 with the elaboration of a set of indicators
to assess “the protection and empowerment of women in conflict settings and in post conflict
situations”. In 2010 the EU adopted the 17 indicators developed by the Task Force. Indicators
measure action in six areas: country and regional level; integration of WPS in EU priority
sectors (e.g. SSR, DDR, civil society); political support and cooperation with international actors;
women’s participation; CSDP; and international protection. Compliance was evaluated in two
reports: one covering the period from December 2008 to October 2010 (Council of the EU,
2011) and the second spanning from October 2010 to December 2012 (Council of the EU,
2014). Importantly, the EU is in the process of reformulating the indicators and reviewing its
WPS policy in line with the comprehensive review of the UNSCR 1325 and the international
development agenda. In consultations with civil society – the Civil Society Dialogue Network
has channeled this interlocution – proposals such as including sub-indicators for specific issues
have arisen.
Despite the comprehensive policy framework of the EU, gender mainstreaming has
been uneven in its peacebuilding and conflict prevention policies. Although gender has been
incorporated to a greater or lesser extent into key documents like the Concept on Strengthening
EU Mediation and Dialogue Capacities (2009) and the Review of the Implementation of the
European Security Strategy (ESS) (2008), reducing the gender blindness of the ESS (2003), other
vital documents like the Comprehensive Approach to External Conflicts and Crises (2013) and its
revision in 2014 do not incorporate gender explicitly. Notably, the EU Member States (EUMS)
have also created their own policies, mainly by developing National Action Plans (NAPs) related
to the implementation of UNSCR 1325 and the WPS agenda. In October 2015, 17 EUMS had
a NAP, with national priorities and strategies.
The EU policy on WPS has been assessed by civil society and in academic research,
which have raised strengths, weaknesses and recommendations (EPLO, 2015; Gya, 2011;
Olsson and Sundström, 2012; Olsson, 2015). The EU policy framework has been positively
evaluated, as it evidences a genuine commitment with gender mainstreaming in foreign policy
and represents a contribution to the development of the international policy agenda regarding
these issues (Martinelli, 2014). This framework is considered as holistic (EPLO, 2015), well
developed (Martinelli, 2014) and highly ambitious (EPLO, 2012). Authors highlight that gender
equality constitutes one of the fundamental principles of EU’s CFSP (Olsson and Sundström,
2012). The literature has also found evidence of progress in EU policy framework, pointing to
comprehensive policy developments, increasingly detailed policy documents and more precise
language in its formulation (Olsson, 2015). Parallel to this, the literature has found weaknesses
at policy level, including vagueness in some policy documents, insufficient integration of the
WPS agenda in conflict prevention and peacebuilding policy documents, weaknesses in the
impact assessment system and the lack of definition and depth of targets and indicators, among
others (Gya, 2007; 2011; EPLO, 2015).
In addition, there is a common acknowledgement in the literature of the gap between
comprehensive and strong policy commitments and practical implementation. In relation to this
gap, authors have pointed to key issues such as a lack of resources (Martinelli, 2014, 2015);
insufficient support at the level of leadership at headquarters and missions (Olsson et al., 2014);
scarce institutional or strategic approach to gender mainstreaming at implementation level
despite committed individuals’ efforts and that despite this some gender considerations are
8
taken into account in practice (Olsson et al., 2014; EPLO, 2012); lack of willingness to change
power structures with the aim of making them more equitable in terms of gender (Martinelli,
2014); lack of understanding on how to implement gender policy in assignments (Olsson and
Sundström, 2012). Some authors also highlight insufficient EUMS’ commitment to the WPS
agenda (e.g. not every EUMS has a NAP, there is poor and inconsistent presence of women in
decision-making positions and not all EUMS agree on the importance of including gender
requirements in mandates) and resulting lack of credibility (Martinelli, 2014); uneven reporting
on gender (EPLO, 2012); lack of reliable data on gender-based violence as a major obstacle for
effective action (Martinelli, 2015); and poor engagement with local women (Martinelli, 2014,
Valenius 2007).
9
4. EU actors on WPS
The promotion of gender in EU conflict prevention and peacebuilding policies has created its
own architecture of actors that combines specific functions to support gender throughout the
EU and makes gender mainstreaming the responsibility of all actors (EU institutions and EUMS).
With respect to specific functions, it was not until September 2015 that a high-level position
was established: the European External Action Service (EEAS) Principal Advisor on Gender and
on the Implementation of the UNSCR 1325 on WPS, who answers directly to the EEAS
Secretary General. This brings the EU closer to other organisations with high-level positions
(UN, AU, OSCE, NATO).
Its specific structure also includes the informal Task Force on UNSCR 1325 at the
headquarters level, created in 2009 in order to enhance consistency and institutional
coordination concerning WPS. It mainly involves EEAS and European Commission (EC) staff
working on the gender dimension and the area of security, under EEAS leadership, with the
participation of the EUMS and the presence of NATO, the UN and civil society. The Task Force
meets periodically with the EU Special Representative (SR) for Human Rights, the Crisis
Management and Planning Directorate (CMPD) and the Civilian Planning and Conduct
Capability (CPCC) of the EEAS. The Task Force has engaged in dialogue with civil society since
2010. This includes NGO platforms that are active in targeting the EU, such as EPLO, which
has described the Task Force as the driving force in implementing CA 1325 (EPLO, 2012; Gya,
2010). According to Onslow, Schoofs and Maguire (2010), consultations are a fruitful example
of interactions, as shown by improvements of the original EU gender indicators after
consultations with civil society experts. Nonetheless, significant problems have been detected
regarding the Task Force, such as a shortage of human resources (double-hatting, part-time)
and financial resources, as well as the lack of a clear gender structure at the EEAS, at least until
recently (Gya, 2011; EPLO, 2012).
Added to this are the gender advisors (GA), gender focal points (GFPs) and gender
experts, in the headquarters in Brussels (across the EEAS and the EC) and in the field. Their
creation reflects an operational approach (Olsson and Sundström, 2012). GA usually refer to
staff dealing with gender who have previous experience or expertise on these issues, while
GFP refer usually to staff who are assigned to work on gender as an additional task and that do
not necessarily have gender expertise (Rehrl and Glume, 2015). According to the EU, 70% of
the 16 CSDP missions deployed in 2013, including all military operations, had at least one
gender advisor/trainer, and at the end of this year all had human rights focal points (EEAS,
2014). There are GFPs in crisis management bodies at the headquarters level, in all EU
delegations, and within the EC in important areas like Commission's Directorate-General for
International Cooperation and Development (DG DEVCO) and the service for Foreign Policy
Instruments (FPI).
These are complemented by mechanisms acting as a community of experts, such as the
network of human rights and gender advisors/focal points of CSDP missions and operations.
This network meets annually under coordination of the Task Force (Gya 2010). It started to
meet formally in November 2009, due to the proved usefulness of a previous informal meeting.
It provides a space for sharing best practices and lessons learned, as well as for cross-learning.
Lessons learned have included reflections on staffing (e.g. need for gender advisors in all
10
missions, obstacles generated by ‘double-hatting’), planning and pre-deployment (e.g. relevance
of early integration of gender), monitoring, training and coaching, practical steps, coordination
with other organisations (e.g. relevance of building on previous valuable work of others)
(Council of the EU, 2009). Some of its recommendations have resulted in improvements in
subsequent policy documents, such as the 2012 Council’s document updating gender policy in
the context of CSDP missions and operations. In relation to actors, best practices have included
the role of the gender advisor in EUMM Georgia, featuring bi-monthly meetings with focal
points in field offices to enhance gender mainstreaming (Council of the EU, 2014) and the
strengthening of the gender structure in EUPOL COPPs, by moving from a double-hatting
situation to a designated GA and GFPs. Other initiatives on community of experts include the
EEAS Women Network, established in 2013 under the leadership of the EEAS Deputy
Secretary General for Political Affairs and aiming at sharing the experience and advice of
women diplomats in senior management positions (EEAS 2014); or the network of gender focal
points of delegations.
Furthermore, all EU actors are called upon to mainstream gender. Especially relevant in
this regard are the heads of missions and heads of operations, which are key to operational
implementation. However, assessments indicate that much greater effort in terms of leadership
is required (Olsson and Sundström, 2012; Olsson et al., 2014). The EU delegations and
delegation heads are also potentially key to integrating the WPS agenda into political dialogue
with third countries (Martinelli, 2014; EPLO, 2012). Special representatives (SR) are also
important, as EU policy calls for their mandates to give consideration to WPS and specifies
possible actions to undertake such as monitoring the situation of women, reporting on gender
and maintaining contacts with relevant local actors. In practice, the EU has identified a positive
trend of stronger integration of WPS in the work of EUSRs, even if with substantial differences
among them. The EU has provided examples of good practices, including by EUSR for
Afghanistan (e.g. on gender and peace negotiations), Georgia (e.g. work on WPS, meetings with
women from civil society, including from breakaway entities) and, notably, by the EUSR for
Human Rights (e.g. close contacts on 1325 with UN Women, UN SR on sexual violence and
NATO SR for WPS) (Council of the EU, 2014). Despite CA 1325’s calls for integration of
gender into mandates, the mandates of EU SR for Human Rights have not included so far
explicit references to gender or UNSCR 1325, although this has not prevented action on this
field.
The literature points to pressing challenges like the shortage of human and financial
resources among EU actors with specific gender functions and the need for greater effort from
the rest, especially in terms of leadership and in mainstreaming gender throughout the cycle of
their respective areas of competence (Olsson and Sundström, 2012; Olsson et al., 2014).
Another problem is the gender imbalance at the top EU positions, including at the EEAS senior
management level (Martinelli, 2014; EPLO, 2014; Van Der Vleuten, 2012), even though the
HR/VP Mogherini has pledged to increase to 40% the rate of Heads of Delegations by the end
of 2019 (Council of the EU, 2015). EU monitoring and best practices reports acknowledge
shortcomings and raise both lessons learned and challenges. Despite persistent substantial
gaps, there is evidence of practical positive shifts that point to a follow up on the
recommendations, such as regarding EUFOR RD Congo, which is considered by the EU and
external observers as a success case for its comprehensive aim at integrating gender. In terms
of actors, this meant the provision of clear support and guidance by the Operational
11
Commander and Force Commander; gender training for personnel in DRC and linked to the
mandate assignments; nomination of gender advisor and gender focal points in several units
and linkage through a network as well as links to other international and local actors working on
gender (Barnes, 2009b).
5. Gender, peace and security in EU interventions
After this general overview on the WPS at the EU, this section will address gender in EU
interventions, specifically across multi-track diplomacy, security sector reform and governance
reform. It briefly reflects on the relevance of a gender perspective in these issues and analyses
the EU policy and practice, identifying dilemmas, gaps and lessons learned.
5.1 Gender and multi-track diplomacy
The international WPS agenda has underlined the importance of gender and the full and equal
participation of women in all areas of decision-making linked to conflict prevention and
resolution and to peace processes. Nevertheless, women remain significantly underrepresented in formal mediation, dialogue and negotiating processes (Anderlini, 2007; Bell,
2013; Fisas, 2008; Bell and O’Rourke, 2010; Castillo and Tordjman, 2012). Recent evidence
points to slow progress – peace negotiations in Colombia and the Philippines are mentioned as
positive examples (Coomaraswamy, 2015). The literature has identified obstacles to women’s
participation (the problem of power and women’s general access to areas of decision-making;
the central role of armed actors – dominated by men – in negotiations, as well as a
masculinised Track I mediating environment which has limited gender expertise and is resistant
to including women; the persistence of stereotypes that mainly identify women as victims;
logistical, cultural, social and economic difficulties, and problems of conciliation and security
threats) and has also documented women’s efforts to access Track I spaces, their Track II and III
initiatives and their contributions, including the introduction and prioritisation of issues on the
negotiating agenda (Barnes, 2002; Potter, 2005, 2008; Anderlini, 2007; Mannergren, Nyquist
and Söderberg, 2012; Reimann, 2014; Coomaraswamy, 2015). More recently, the literature has
provided evidence on the positive impact of women involvement in terms of quality and
sustainability of peace (Paffenholz, 2015; O’Reilly, Ó Suilleabháin and Paffenholz, 2015).
In this area, EU policy is based mainly on CA 1325 and Concept on Strengthening EU
Mediation and Dialogue Capacities (2009). CA 1325 recognises the existence of challenges like
the exclusion of women from areas of peace and security decision-making, mediators’ and
negotiators’ lack of interaction with women’s organisations and the rare selection of women for
teams leading peace negotiations. In response, the EU commits to adopting specific measures
like support for women’s participation through diplomatic and financial means, an increase in
the number of women mediators and chief negotiators and support for local women’s
organisations in peace processes. The Concept on Strengthening EU Mediation and Dialogue
includes among its five guiding principles the “promotion of women’s participation” and asserts
that building the EU’s capacities for mediation requires the identification of women mediators,
the promotion of their representation and the availability of gender expertise from the start of
12
the mediation processes (Council of the EU, 2009b). The EU has reaffirmed its commitments in
this area in the policy documents that guide implementation of the WPS agenda in CSDP
missions (Council of the EU, 2008b; 2010b, 2012). Recently the new framework for the EU’s
activities on gender equality and female empowerment in the EU’s external relations for 20162020 – SWD (2015)182, adopted in September and built on the previous Gender Action Plan
2010-2015 – also identified strengthening women’s voice and participation in all areas of
decision-making, including their role as peacebuilders, as one of the pillars of its action.
The implementation of EU policy in this field has included a wide range of activities
developed at EU level or at EUMS level, in line with the types of EU mediation involvement –
promoting, leveraging, supporting, finding and acting as a mediator itself – as drawn from the
2009 EU Concept. The EU has raised the issue of women’s equal and full participation of
women in peace negotiations in both political dialogues and international fora and tried to use
its political weight to support initiatives, such as the efforts of Mary Robinson to ensure
women’s participation in the Great Lakes region. It has also financially supported women’s
organisations in order to empower them to contribute to informal or formal peace talks; has
provided resources for mediation gender expertise on mediation processes and for trainings in
mediation and negotiation skills e.g. in Guatemala, Guinea Bissau, Kirgizstan or Maldives; and
has provided support and lobbied for the inclusion of women in conflict prevention and
resolution initiatives e.g. in the Nairobi Dialogue in Eastern DRC, and funding awareness
campaigns in Côte d’Ivoire or supporting women track 2 and 3 in Nepal. However, the EU
recognises that women’s meaningful participation in peace negotiations and mediation efforts
remains low (Council of the EU, 2011, 2014, 2015; EEAS, 2012; ECDPM, 2012).
The EU has acknowledged difficulties to track the implementation of their commitments
in this area. Among the 17 indicators on CA 1325, 4 are considered especially relevant to
mediation and dialogue (8 to 11), aimed at identifying the number of women involved in
negotiations supported by the EU, the EU’s activities to support women’s participation in
negotiations, the number and type of meetings between EU delegations and women’s
organisations or organisations working on WPS and the proportion of men and women in EU
diplomatic missions as well as UN or CSDP operations (Council of the EU, 2010; EEAS, 2012;
EPLO, 2015). Nevertheless, the first report on indicators (2011) found it difficult to gather
information about women’s participation in negotiations indicating that “this aspect was not
considered an objective or criteria in itself” by EU institutions or the EUMS (Council of the EU,
2011, 4). The second report on the indicators for the CA 1325 (2014) identified a better
understanding of this issue, but the participation of women in peace processes is still
considered a challenge and identified as a priority area for the next report on indicators for the
CA 1325 (2013-2015) (Council of the EU, 2014). In order to improve the understanding on this
issue at internal level, the EU has introduced the issue of women’s participation on mediation in
training of EU staff and has also promoted the development fact sheets and studies on women
at mediation and peace processes, partly in recognition of the absence of baseline data on this
issue (Council of the EU, 2014, 2015). A common conclusion underlined in these reports is that
the EU should lead by example, including women at all levels and prioritising women in key
roles that are likely to be involved in EU mediation and dialogue (Mannergren, Nyquist and
Söderberg, 2012; ECDPM, 2012).
13
The EU has recognised the need to improve the evaluation mechanisms, coinciding with
experts and civil society organizations that emphasize the need to measure not only how
“active” the EU is in this area, but also how “effective” it is (EPLO, 2015). Among other issues,
the EU has been recommended to examine case studies in greater depth to collect qualitative
information (how inclusive the peace processes are, who the women involved in them are, what
issues they raise and how they are addressed). Experts have suggested the reformulation of
indicators and introduction of sub-indicators (e.g. to distinguish the number and percentage of
women in peace processes led by the EU or where the EU takes an active role acting as
mediators, negotiators or technical experts in Tracks I, II and III) and the formal participation of
civil society in evaluation has been also advised (e.g. shadow reporting) (EPLO, 2012, 2015;
Maguire, 2013; EEAS, 2012; Onslow, Schoofs and Maguire, 2010). Other proposals include
taking advantage of local gender experience, giving CSDP missions more specific mandates for
mediation and gender expertise and consulting regularly with women’s NGOs (ECDPM, 2012;
Kvinna, 2012; Olsson and Sundström, 2012). The consideration of quotas for women’s
participation and the introduction of conditionality criteria as EU precondition to support formal
peace processes has been consistently advised by civil society and experts (Kviina, 2012;
ECDPM, 2012; EPLO, 2011).
Regarding concrete experiences where the EU has been involved, it should be noted
that recent peace negotiations in Yemen and Mali have been identified as learning and nonlearning cases, respectively. In Yemen – where the EU has promoted the engagement of
women in dialogue – the participation of women in the National Dialogue Conference in
Yemen has been identified as an example of how the design of a peace process and the
pressure of local women’s NGOs and international players can overcome gender inequalities
and cultural objections. A 30 per cent quota for women was agreed across all the
constituencies and, additionally, women had their own delegation of 40 seats. Finally, 28% of
participants (161 of 565) were women and in each working group at least one of the leadership
positions was for a woman. In contrast, the peace process in Mali, where the EU is one of over
10 co-mediators, has been cited as a case where women’s participation has not been given
priority despite their public demands to be included (similarly to other experiences with a role
of the EU, such as the Butmir process in Bosnia). Cultural arguments – the so-called “cultural
dilemma” – fears of delays in talks and the preference to include women in future phases have
been used to justify their exclusion, amidst a process of international mediation fully dominated
by men (Coomaraswamy, 2015; Mannergren, Nyquist and Söderberg, 2012).
5.2 Gender and security sector reform
The relation between gender and security sector reform (SSR) has received growing attention
since the launch of the global WPS agenda (Coomaraswamy, 2015; Mobekk, 2010). The gender
perspective in SSR emphasises the importance of taking into account the (in)security
experiences and needs of men, women, boys and girls, assuming that their different
experiences and priorities are linked to the social processes and structures within which they
live (Bastick, 2008; Mobekk, 2010; Anderlini, 2008). For example, this approach may give more
visibility to sexual and gender violence as a security problem (Barnes, 2009). Authors agree that
the gender dimension is indispensable if SSR is to remain consistent with its core principles:
14
people centred, locally owned and based on democratic norms and human rights, as defined by
the OECD (Bastick, 2008). As Bastick emphasizes, a process cannot be people-centred or
democratic if the needs of half of the people are not represented (Bastick, 2008). It is argued
that a gendered lens on SSR issues offers an alternative paradigm to traditional militarised
perspectives, and also widens the range of “local owners” with which international proponents
of SSR can engage (Anderlini, 2010). Gender is recognised as crucial for the efficiency of SSR
(Gya and Thomsen, 2009) by expanding the number of relevant stakeholders with capacity to
identify the security needs. This, in turn, enhances local ownership and has positive effects in
terms of legitimacy and sustainability of the SSR process. Additionally, it is considered that a
gendered SSR increases the effectiveness of service delivery of security services and justice –
e.g. by creating more representative SSR institutions, strengthening responses to GBV or
benefitting from increased participation of women in policing – and also strengthens oversight
and accountability, which are key aspects to limit abuses of power and effectively protect the
population (Anderlini, 2008; Valasek, 2008; Mobekk, 2010; Bastick, 2008; Barnes, 2009a;
OECD-DAC, 2009; Coomaraswamy, 2015). The literature has identified two strategies for
integrating gender into SSR: gender balancing, or the promotion of the equal participation of
men and women in security institutions, decision-making on SSR and oversight bodies –
traditionally male dominated-; and gender mainstreaming, which involves assessing the gender
impact of all SSR measures (Bastick, 2008; Valasek, 2008; Mobekk, 2010).
There are three key documents that define the EU strategy on SSR, based on the vision
of the OECD-DAC. They all refer to the gender dimension, but fail to go into sufficient detail
(Barnes, 2009). EU Concept for ESDP Support to SSR (2005), by the Council, mentions the need
to include gender issues in security force training and refers to UNSCR 1325. A Concept for
European Community Support for SSR (2006), by the Commission, recognises that the EU’s
approach to SSR processes must be guided by a “gender sensitive multi-sector approach”, an
idea echoed in Conclusions on a Policy Framework for SSR (2006), where it appears as one of the
principles that must guide the EU’s action on SSR. In SSR, as in other areas, CA 1325 (2008) is
the key document and specifies key areas where the EU should pay attention: the identification
of security needs; the inclusion of women in relevant institutions (like the police); investments
in infrastructure to attend to victims of gender-based violence; the strengthening of women’s
participation and access to justice; witness protection and an end to impunity for the crimes
affecting women. With regard to DDR, CA 1325 aligns with EU Concept for support to DDR
(2006), which recognises the need to integrate the gender perspective and avoid exclusionary
definitions of “combatants” that marginalise women and girls, adding that those processes must
be an opportunity to raise awareness about sexual and gender-based violence. The EU
framework on gender and SSR has also been enriched by the Council’s documents on how to
incorporate WPS into CSDP missions, one of the EU’s main mechanisms for promoting SSR
processes (Council of the EU, 2010b, 2012). Furthermore, the EUMS have made commitments
to gender and SSR in their NAPs (Barnes, 2009).
The two reports on indicators for the CA 1325 (Council of the EU, 2011, 2014) have
provided partial data on the number and funding of SSR or DDR projects that contribute to
gender equality (indicator 5). The EU has also identified lessons learned on SSR (e.g. the
importance of training and clear orders regarding sexual violence) and the types of activities
supported by the EU in this area: the promotion of women in debates on SSR (EUSEC and
EUPOL DR Congo); measures to support the recruitment of women in security forces
15
(EUPM/BiH); the gathering of gender-disaggregated information (EUPOL Afghanistan, EUMM
Georgia, EUSEC and EUPOL DR Congo); the promotion of gender mainstreaming and of
women’s participation in reforming the judicial sector (EUJUST LEX-Iraq); support for measures
against domestic violence (the creation of specialised police units, EUPOL COPPS, and support
for legal reforms, EULEX-Kosovo) and also support in the fight against sexual violence (EUPOL
and EUSEC RD Congo) (Council of the EU, 2010b, 2011). The case of RD Congo has been
mentioned by literature as a learning case on women’s providing inputs to SSR process with EU
support (Gya, Isaksson and Martinelli, 2009; Olsson and Sundström, 2012).
The literature has analysed some aspects of the EU’s gender policies and practices on
SSR as part of broader assessments of gender in CSDP (Valenius, 2009; Olsson and Sundström,
2012; Gya, Isaksson and Martinelli, 2009; Gya, 2011; Olsson et al., 2014; Sundin and Olsson,
2014) or reflections focused on the SSR activities of ESDP/CSDP missions (Bloching, 2011;
Gya and Thomsen, 2009), including specific gender perspectives (Barnes, 2009). Some gaps
identified by the literature in this area indicate the lack of a strategic approach to guide
implementation of the gender approach to SSR in missions and the dearth of specific gender
expertise on SSR in EU bodies. Additionally, it identifies the need to support local stakeholders
working on gender/SSR, the gender imbalance in CSDP missions – which affects the
interactions with local women and the work on gender and sexual violence, as well as their
capacity to act as role models for local women – the lack of human and financial resources for
gender activities and SSR, as well as the need for disaggregated information (Barnes, 2009;
EPLO, 2012; Bloching, 2011, Gya, 2011; Olsson and Sundström, 2012; Olsson et al., 2014).
From a general perspective, literature on gender and SSR has concluded that in the past
15 years increased awareness on gender dynamics within the security sector has resulted in
more attention to specific needs and capacities of women and girls (Coomaraswamy, 2015).
However, gaps between policy and practice have been also identified. Among the main
problems or challenges, the literature mentions the tendency to focus on women
representation in security forces in detriment of other areas of SSR; dissimilar understanding
and implementation of gender by SSR actors; resistance from local politicians and security
sector to incorporate gender perspective on SSR as perceived as an external an imposed
agenda; lack of prioritisation of gender issues in programming and funding of SSR initiatives;
and failures in DDR programmes especially regarding the reintegration component. (Mobekk,
2010; Anderlini, 2008; Bastick, 2008; Barnes, 2009; OECD-DAC, 2009; Coomaraswamy,
2015).
5.3 Gender and governance reform
There is a significant normative framework that recognises the need to address gender in postconflict governance reform and argues that women have a crucial role to play in it. This is
supported by key documents like CEDAW and UNSCR 1325 and aims to develop systems of
inclusive governance that take gender into account, including responses to the gender impacts
of conflicts and previous inequalities (Lukatela, 2012; Domingo et al., 2013). They cover the
different areas of political governance processes (constitutional reforms, political systems,
electoral systems, political parties) and administrative governance (decentralisation, public
administration reform, the provision of public services) (Lukatela, 2012). The relevance of the
16
gender perspective for governance reforms as part of peacebuilding and statebuilding
processes has also become a matter of discussion in the literature over the years (Tripp, 2012;
Domingo et al., 2015, 2013; OECD, 2013; Haynes, Ní Aoláin and Cahn, 2011; Castillejo, 2011,
2013). The literature has focused especially on political and electoral processes and civil society
activism and mobilisation, with significant quantitative evidence emerging recently (Hughes and
Tripp, 2015).
Gender responsive governance in peacebuilding concerns several areas of EU foreign
policy, like political dialogue, financing and CSDP missions. In addition to references to gender
and governance in specific policy documents on gender and development policy, the EU’s
stance is explicitly stated in CA 1325 (section on “Governance and Civil Society”), which
stresses that transition periods provide opportunities to reformulate constitutions and laws and
to create new systems of governance. It urges that special attention be paid to protecting the
rights of women and eradicating discrimination in legislation and in practice, to supporting
women in processes of reconciliation, to women’s participation in political decision-making and
governmental bodies and to backing local women’s groups to protect women’s rights and
monitor public policies.
Part of the EU’s indicators on CA 1325 measure aspects of governance, albeit in
indirect ways, such as support for third countries to develop NAPs, the number of projects or
programmes in specific sectors, including in civil society, the number and types of meetings of
EU delegations, EUMS embassies and CSDP missions with groups of women and/or NGOs
working on WPS. More recently, SWD(2015)182 also refers to links between gender equality,
democracy, good governance, peacebuilding and statebuilding, and considers strengthening the
voices of women and girls and their participation in social, economic and political life as a
pivotal area of action. Moreover, the EU’s specific documents on WPS and missions have
consequences for missions with governance-related aspects, at least in theory, by promoting
gender mainstreaming throughout their cycles.
In view of the policy framework, the literature indicates that the EU has a clear mandate
to support the political participation of women in post-conflict societies in various fields of
action, highlighting political dialogue and the opportunity for delegations and missions to
introduce gender issues related to national legislation and institutional mechanisms, women’s
organisations and civil society and elections into the agenda (Onslow, Schoofs and Maguire,
2010, Lyytikäinen 2009). However, there is a gap between political commitments and
implementation, akin to the operationalisation of gender in missions. The need for clearer
guidelines has also been identified, as EUMM Georgia staff members have indicated (Olsson
and Sundström, 2012; Olsson et al., 2014).
The EU has developed lessons learned and good practices for missions that are relevant
to governance issues. These indicate that CSDP missions may pave the way for long-term
peacebuilding activities, which can involve the start of reforms to the political system and
support for legislative reforms, including on good governance (e.g. EULEX). They can also
engage in unbiased human rights monitoring (e.g. EULEX, EUSEC, EUPOL DR Congo, EUMP,
EUMM Georgia, AMM) aimed at promoting legitimate institutions and preventing conflicts. If
their mandate allows, they could have a significant role in promoting new legislation for more
equal political participation (e.g. EUSEC and EUPOL DR Congo) (Council of the EU, 2010). The
EU’s reports on indicators for the CA 1325 also address progress, gaps and challenges.
17
6. Conclusions
After a historical process of expansion in its gender policy, the EU is considered a significant
regional player in terms of WPS. Following the UN’s leadership, the EU has developed an
ambitious and comprehensive policy framework on WPS/gender, peace and security that
involves all EU actors and areas of action (mainly political dialogue, funding programming and
CSDP missions and operations) in mainstreaming gender in conflict prevention and
peacebuilding. This approach has permeated areas such as multi-track diplomacy, SSR and
governance reform and has strengthened the EU’s capacities in the area of conflict prevention
and peacebuilding as it constitutes a foundation for promoting more inclusive and sustainable
processes.
The literature has detected many gaps and challenges, mainly the gap between
commitments and implementation linked to insufficient human and/or financial resources,
which also reflects a lack of political will. The gender imbalance in the top positions of the EU
raises doubts about its status as a role model and its legitimacy in this area. In conjunction with
this, greater effort in leadership is seen as necessary to make the gender mainstreaming
strategy effective. The literature also points to the need for greater coherence and
coordination between EU institutions and the EUMS. Likewise, it warns of a risk of isolation
between the WPS agenda and the general conflict prevention and peacebuilding agenda,
because gender is often only taken into account in relation to the EU gender equality policy.
Simultaneously, some reductionism has been detected in the EU when translating and
implementing the global WPS agenda by focusing mostly on the security sector and neglecting
other dimensions (Coomaraswamy, 2015). Other more specific shortcomings include
insufficient clarity and guidance on how to mainstream gender in the various areas and levels of
action. All these challenges point to possible future lines of research for the EU, with the help
of larger case studies and analysis of the new dynamics that may result from the ongoing
transition phase.
Regarding the WOSCAP project, this scoping study identifies important connections
between the gender perspective and the WPS agenda of the EU and other cross-cutting
approaches such as local ownership processes. This raises questions about inclusiveness, intersectionality and accountability. At the same time, the EU’s WPS agenda acknowledges the need
for multi-lateral relationships with other international, regional and local stakeholders, leading to
questions about the degree of multi-stakeholder coherence in practice regarding WPS
implementation. In turn, the EU’s gender mainstreaming strategy involves all stakeholders and
areas of action, including civilian-military relations. Finally, the study on the WPS agenda in the
EU raises questions about the role of ICTs in preventing conflict, the gendered impacts of the
use of ICTs, the EU’s level of support for ICTs as a useful tool for implementing the WPS
agenda and for EU visibility and public diplomacy regarding WPS. All these issues are relevant
to the WOSCAP project.
18
Annex 1: Research questions
One of the aims of WOSCAP project is to analyse whether and how the EU is implementing its
gender commitments in its conflict prevention and peacebuilding interventions, as gender
equality is a fundamental principle of the EU CFSP in line with EU’s endorsement of global
WPS agenda. What follows are possible research questions to be addressed in subsequent
research phases of the project.
Building on the analytical framework proposed by Olsson and Sundström (2012), we set
two different groups of questions that refer to 1) Integration (how and where is gender
mainstreamed) and 2) Participation (how do women and men take part in the work).
1) How and where is gender mainstreamed?
§
What have been the main initiatives on WPS the EU has been promoting in Mali,
Yemen, Ukraine and Georgia?
§
Have objectives related to gender been set in the mandate of EU intervention and
planning documents? Do these objectives relate to WPS? Are they clear enough?
§
What guidance is given to those implementing on the ground (CSDP mission/EU
Delegation personnel…) on how to translate gender commitments into practice? How
clear are these policy guidelines? Is there a shared understanding on what gender
implies for the daily work of EU actors on the ground in relation to their assignments
and mandate & on what aspects of gender are relevant for the EU intervention in this
country?
§
Is the leadership of the mission/Delegation actively supporting WPS?
§
How familiar is EU staff on the ground with EU gender policy and mechanisms (e.g. CA
1325, indicators, lessons learned reports)
§
What are the main difficulties and obstacles gender advisors and gender focal points
face to perform their assigned tasks successfully?
§
Is reporting on EU gender being implemented, including specific gender reporting and
gender mainstreaming in general reporting? What mechanisms for gender reporting are
put in practice? Does reporting on gender build on the gender indicators developed by
the EU?
§
Are the trainings on gender issues to EU staff leading to a better understanding and
integration of the WPS agenda on the ground?
§
Is there a coordinated approach on gender and WPS between the EU actors in the
country (e.g. CSDP mission, Delegation, EUSR) and EUMS?
§
Is the EU coordinating with other international organizations working on WPS in the
country?
19
§
Is the EU raising WPS issues in its political dialogue/ diplomatic relations with the local
government?
§
To what extent is the EU using the ITCs to facilitate the understanding and
implementation of gender/WPS policies at internal and external level? (e.g. online
courses, networks on gender issues, platforms for sharing best practices or
dissemination of policies and practices?
§
Is there specific funding for gender/WPS activities?
§
Is the EU systematically collecting gender disaggregated data relevant for its
interventions?
§
Is the EU collecting evidence of impact in the living conditions of women and girls in
countries where it is promoting and supporting the WPS agenda?
2) How do women and men take part in the work?
§
What mechanisms are developed on the ground by EU actors to engage with local
women? Are there clear guidelines on how this interaction should take place?
§
What actors of civil society in relation of gender is the EU engaging with? (ex. women’s
organizations involved in WPS, actors working on gender in relation to mission
assignments –e.g. SSR, DDR–, women’s rights groups, women groups based in the
capital or in rural areas, others…).
§
Is the EU meeting with local women decision-makers?
§
How are these meetings feeding into EU intervention/approach?
§
Does EU internal gender imbalance (e.g. low number of women in decision making
positions) affect negatively its field work in terms of WPS implementation?
20
Bibliography
Abels, G. and Mushaben, J.M., eds. 2012. Gendering the European Union. New Approaches to
Old Democratic Deficits. Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan.
Anderlini, S. 2007. Women building peace: What they do, why it matters. Boulder: Lynne
Rienner.
----------------.2008. “Gender Perspectives and Women as Stakeholders: Broadening Local
Ownership of SSR.” In Local Ownership and Security Sector Reform, edited by Donais,
T. DCAF Yearly Books.
Barnes, C., ed. 2002. Owning the process. Public participation in peacemaking. Accord, 13.
London: Conciliation Resources.
Barnes, K. 2009a. Building an inclusive security sector. How the EU can support gendersensitive security sector in conflict-affected countries. London: International Alert.
---------------. 2009b. Briefing note “on Gender, Peace and Security and Development: What
can the EU do?”, EU Gender Advisory Services.
---------------. 2011. “The EU and women, peace and security issues.” In Olonisakin, F., Barnes,
K. and Ikpe, E. Women, Peace and Security: Translating Policy into Practice. London:
Routledge.
Bastick, M. 2008. “Integrating gender in post-conflict security sector reform.” In SIPRI Yearbook
2008: Armaments, Disarmament and International Security. New York: Oxford
University Press.
Bell, C. 2013. Women and peace processes, negotiations, and agreements: operational
opportunities and challenges. Oslo: NOREF.
Bell, C. and O'Rourke, C. 2010. “Peace agreements or pieces of paper? The impact of UNSC
Resolution 1325 on peace processes and their agreements.” International and
Comparative Law Quarterly. 59 (04): 941-980.
Bloching, S. 2011. Security Sector Reform Missions under CSDP: Addressing Current Needs.
EU Crisis Management Paper Series. DCAF Brussels – ISIS Europe.
Booth, C. and Bennett, C. 2002. “Gender Mainstreaming in the European Union: Towards a
New Conception and Practice of Equal Opportunities?.” European Journal of Women's
Studies. 9: 430-446.
Carbone, M. and Lister M.R., eds. 2006. New pathways in International Development: Gender
and Civil Society in EU Policy. Hampshire: Ashgate.
21
Castillejo, C. 2011. Building a State that Works for Women: Integrating Gender into Postconflict State Building. Working Paper 107. Madrid: FRIDE.
------------------. 2013) “Gender and Statebuilding." In Routledge Handbook of International
Statebuilding, edited by Sisk T. D. and Chandler, D. Abindon: Routledge.
Castillo, P. and Tordjman, S. “Women’s Participation in Peace Negotiations: Connections
between Presence and Influence.” In UN Women Sourcebook on Women, Peace and
Security. UN Women.
Chinkin, C. (2003) “Peace agreements as a means for promoting gender equality and ensuring
participation of women.” Background paper for the Expert Group Meeting on “Peace
agreements as a means for promoting gender equality and ensuring participation of
women. A framework of model provisions”. United Nations. Division for the
Advancement of Women.
Cockburn, C. (2007) From Where We Stand: War, Women’s Activism and Feminist Analysis.
London: Zed Books.
Cohen, D. K., Hoover Green, A. and Wood, E. J. 2013. Wartime Sexual Violence:
Misconceptions, Implications, and Ways Forward. USIP.
Cohn, C., ed. 2013. Women and Wars. Cambridge, Malden: Polity.
Cohn, C., Kinsella, H. and Gibbings, S. 2004. “Women, Peace and Security Resolution 1325.”
International Feminist Journal of Politics. 6(1): 130-140.
Coomaraswarmy, R. 2015. Preventing Conflict, Transforming Justice, Securing the Peace. A
Global Study on the Implementation of United Nations Security Council resolution
1325. UN Women.
Council of the EU. 2008a. Comprehensive approach to the EU implementation of the United
Nations Resolutions 1325 and 1820 on women, peace and security. 15671/1/08 REV
1. Brussels: GSC/Commission.
------------------------. 2008b. Implementation of UNSCR 1325 as reinforced by UNSCR 1820
in the context of ESDP. 15782/3/08 REV 3. Brussels: Secretariat.
------------------------.2009a. ESDP Gender Advisors and Focal Points Meeting, 9-10 November
2009, Brussels. Brussels: General Secretariat of the Council.
------------------------.2009b. Concept on Strengthening EU Mediation and Dialogue Capacities.
15779/09. Brussels: General Secretariat of the Council.
22
-------------------------.2010a. Lessons and best practices on mainstreaming human rights and
gender into CSDP military operations and civilian missions. 17138/1/10 REV 1.
Brussels: CIVCOM/PSC.
-----------------------.2010b. Indicators for the Comprehensive approach to the EU
implementation of the United Nations Security Council resolutions 1325 and 1820 on
women, peace and security. 11948/10. Brussels: General Secretariat of the Council.
----------------------. 2011. Report on the EU-indicators for the Comprehensive approach to the
EU implementation of the UNSCRs 1325 & 1820 on women, peace and security.
9990/11. Brussels: Working Party on Human Rights.
---------------------. 2012. Implementation of UNSCRs on Women, Peace and Security in the
context of CSDP missions and operations. 7109/12. Brussels: Political Security
Committee.
---------------------. 2014. Second report on the EU-indicators for the Comprehensive approach
to the EU implementation of the UN Security Council resolutions 1325 & 1820 on
Women, Peace and Security. 6219/14. Brussels: General Secretariat of the Council.
----------------------. 2015. European Union input to the Global Study on Women, Peace and
Security. Brussels: General Secretariat of the Council.
Domingo, P. et al. 2013. Assessment of the evidence of links between gender equality,
peacebuilding and statebuilding. London: ODI.
-----------------------. 2015. Women’s voice and leadership in decision-making. London: ODI.
ECDPM. 2012. Women’s Participation and Gender. Factsheet – EEAS Mediation Support
Project. EEAS K2 Division.
EEAS. 2012. Report on EU Member States meeting on UNSCR 1325 Peace negotiations and
mediation. Brussels: EEAS.
---. 2014. Suggested reporting template for inputs to the Secretary-General’s 2014 report to
the Security Council on women and peace and security. EEAS.
EPLO. Follow up to 10 points on 10 years UNSCR 1325 in Europe. EPLO.
-------. 2012. Maximising EU support to the Women, Peace and Security Agenda. EPLO.
-------. 2014. Where are the EU’s Women Leaders in Foreign Affairs? EPLO.
-------. 2015. Expert Policy Workshop: Refreshing Indicators for the EU’s Women, Peace and
Security Policy. Civil Society Dialogue Network Meeting Report. Civil Society Dialogue
Network.
23
Fisas, V. 2008. 2008 Yearbook on Peace Processes. Barcelona: Icaria.
Gya, G., Issaksson, C. and Martinelli, M. 2009. Report on ESDP missions in the Democratic
Republic of Congo. Background paper for the conference From Commitment to Action
– The EU Delivering to Women in Conflict and Post-Conflict. UNIFEM Brussels.
Gya, G. and Thomsen, V. 2009. Beyond Implementation – making EU SSR effective. European
Security Review. No.46. ISIS Europe.
Gya, G. 2007. The importance of gender in ESDP. European Security Review. No. 34. ISIS
Europe.
Gya, G. 2010. Implementation of EU policies following the UN Security Council Resolution
1325. EXPO/B/DROI/2009/26. Directorate-General for External Policies of the Union.
Gya, G. 2011. Women, Peace and Security in EU Common Security and Defence Policy. Civil
Society Dialogue Network.
Haynes, D. F., Ní Aoláin, F., and Cahn, N. 2011. “Gendering Constitutional Design in PostConflict Societies, William & Mary Journal of Women and the Law.” 17 (3): 509-545.
Hill, F., Aboitiz, M. and Poehlman-Doumbouya, S. 2003. “Nongovernmental Organizations’ Role
in the Buildup and Implementation of Security Council Resolution 1325.” Signs. 28(4):
1255-1269.
Hudson, N.F. 2013. National and Regional Implementation of Security Council Resolutions on
Women, Peace and Security. Background Paper for Global Review Meeting. UN
WOMEN.
Hughes, M. M. and Tripp, A. M. 2015. “Civil War and Trajectories of Change in Women’s
Political Representation in Africa, 1985-2010.” Social Forces. 93(4): 1513-1540.
Kantola, J. 2010. Gender and the European Union. New York: Palgrave Macmillan.
Kronsell, A. and Svedberg, E., eds. 2012. Making Gender, Making War. Violence, Military and
Peacekeeping Practices. London & New York: Routledge.
Kvinna Till Kvinna Foundation. 2012. Equal Power – Lasting Peace: Recommendations to the
EU. Kvinna till Kvinna Foundation.
Leatherman, J. 2011. Sexual Violence and Armed Conflict. Cambridge: Polity.
Leinonen, K. 2010. “Get it Right! Giving the appropriate place to gender and human rights in
the Common Security and Defence Policy.” In Yearbook 2010 on Peacebuilding and
Civilian Crisis Management Studies, edited by Henriksson, K. Crisis Magangement
Centre Finland.
24
Lyytikäinen, M. 2009. Building inclusive post-conflict governance. How the EU Can Support
Women’s Political Participation in Conflict-Affected Contexts. Initiative for
Peacebuilding.
Locher, B. 2012. “Gendering the EU Policy Process and Constructing the Gender Acquis.” In
Gendering the European Union New Approaches to Old Democratic Deficits, edited by
Abels, G. and Mushaben, J.M. Palgrave Macmillan.
Locher, B. & Prügl, E. 2008. Gender and European Integration, conWEB – Webpapers on
Constitutionalism and Governance beyond the State. No 2.
Lucarelli, S. 2014. Gender and the European Union. Firenze: Firenze University Press.
Lukatela, A. 2012. Gender and Post-Conflict Governance: Understanding the Challenges. UN
Women.
Maguire, S. 2013. Lessons Learnt in Monitoring the Implementation of EU Women, Peace and
Security Policy. Background for the CSDN Meeting entitled Monitoring the
Implementation of the EU Comprehensive Approach to UNSCR 1325. CSDN-EPLO.
Mannergren, J., Nyquist, A. and Söderberg, A. 2012. Equal Power – Lasting Peace. Obstacles
for women’s participation in peace processes. Kvinna till Kvinna Foundation.
Martinelli, M. 2014. “Gender Protection in the Context of EU’s External Relations.” In Lucarelli,
S. Gender and the European Union. Firenze: Firenze University Press.
-------. 2015. UNSC Resolution 1325 fifteen years on. European Institute for Security Studies.
Miller, B., Pournik, M. and Swaine, A. 2014. Women in Peace and Security through United
Nations Security Resolution 1325: Literary Review, Content Analysis of National Action
Plans, and Implementation, IGIS WP 13/GGP WP 09.
Mobekk, E. 2010. Gender, Women and Security Sector Reform. International Peacekeeping.
17(2): 278-291.
OECD. 2013. Gender and Statebuilding in Fragile and Conflict-affected States. OECD
Publishing.
OECD-DAC. 2009. Integrating Gender Awareness and Equality. In OECD-DAC Handbook on
Security Sector Reform, 2009 Edition. OECD.
Olonisakin, F., Barnes, K. and Ikpe, E. 2011. Women, Peace and Security: Translating Policy into
Practice. London: Routledge.
25
Olsson, L. 2015. Pirates of the European Union. 50.50 Inclusive Democracy, Open Democracy.
Accessed 15 Oct 2015. https://www.opendemocracy.net/5050/louise-olsson/piratesof-european-union.
Olsson, L. and Gizelis, T., eds. 2015. Gender, Peace and Security: Implementing UN Security
Council Resolution 1325. London and New York: Routledge.
Olsson, L. and Sundström, K. 2012. European Union’s Gender Policy for CSDP Missions:
Contents and Gaps An assessment of existing policy on ‘Women, peace and security’
with examples from EUPOL COPPS, EUMM Georgia, EULEX Kosovo and EUPOL RD
Congo. Stockholm: Folke Bernadotte Academy.
Olsson, L. et al. 2014. Gender, Peace and Security in the European Union’s Field Missions:
Assessments of EUMM Georgia and EUOPOL COPPS Palestinian Territories with
Observations from EULEX Kosovo. Stockholm: Folke Bernadotte Academy.
Onslow C., Schoofs S., Maguire, S. 2010. Peacebuilding with a gender perspective. How the EU
can make a difference. Synthesis Report. Initiative for Peacebuilding.
O’Reilly, M., Ó Súilleabháin, A., and Paffenholz, T. 2015. Reimagining Peacemaking: Women’s
Roles in Peace Processes. New York: International Peace Institute.
Paffenholz, T. et al. 2015. Making Women Count: Assessing Women’s Inclusion and Influence
on the Quality and Sustainability of Peace Negotiation and Implementation. Geneva:
Graduate Institute Geneva.
Potter, A. 2005. We the Women. Why conflict mediation is not just a job for men. Centre for
Humanitarian Dialogue.
---------. 2008. Gender sensitivity: nicety or necessity in peace-process management?
Background paper for the Oslo Forum 2008. Centre for Humanitarian Dialogue.
Pratt, N. and Richter-Devroe, S. 2011. “Critically Examining UNSCR 1325 on Women, Peace
and Security.” International Feminist Journal of Politics. 13(4): 489-503.
Puechguirbal, N. 2010. “Discourses on Gender, Patriarchy and Resolution 1325: A Textual
Analysis of UN Documents.” International Peacekeeping, Vol. 17 (2): 172-187.
--------------------. 2014. “Peacekeeping.” In Gender Matters in Global Politics: A Feminist
Introduction to International Relations, edited by Shepherd, L.J. London and New York:
Routledge.
Rees, T. 1998. Mainstreaming Equality in the European Union. London: Routledge.
26
Rehrl, J. and Glume, G. 2015. Handbook on CSDP missions and operations. The Common
Security and Defence Policy of the European Union, Federal Ministry of Defence and
Sports of the Republic of Austria.
Reimann, C. 2014. Promoting Women’s Participation in Peace Negotiations and Peace
Processes. Eschborn: GIZ.
Shepherd, L.J. 2008. “Power and authority in the production of United Nations Security Council
Resolution 1325.” International Studies Quarterly. 52 (2): 383-404.
--------------. 2014. Advancing the Women, Peace and Security agenda: 2015 and beyond.
Oslo: NOREF.
Sherrif, A. and Hauck, V. 2012. Study on EU lessons learnt in mediation and dialogue. Glass half
full. FWC COM 2011 – Lot 1.
Skjelsbæk, I. 2010. The Elephant in the Room An Overview of How Sexual Violence Came to
be Seen as a Weapon of War. Oslo: PRIO.
Sundin, M. and Olsson, L. Implementing EU Gender Policy in EUPOL Copps. Stockholm: Folke
Bernadotte Academy.
Tripp, A. M. 2012. Women’s Political Empowerment in Statebuilding and Peacebuilding: A
Baseline Study. London: DFID.
UN Women (2012) UN Women Sourcebook on Women, Peace and Security, UN Women.
Valasek, K. 2008. Security Sector Reform and Gender. In Gender and Security Sector Reform
Toolkit, edited by Bastick, M. and Valasek, K. Geneva: DCAF, OSCE/ODIHR, UNINSTRAW.
Valenius, J. 2007. Gender mainstreaming in ESDP missions. Chaillot Paper No.101. Institute for
Security Studies.
Van Der Vleuten, A. “Gendering the Institutions and Actors of the EU.” 2012. In Gendering the
European Union New Approaches to Old Democratic Deficits, edited by Abels, G. and
Mushaben, J.M.. Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan.
Weiner, E. and Macrae, H. 2014. The Persistent Invisibility of Gender in EU Policy:
Introduction. European Integration online Papers (EIoP). Special issue 1. Vol. 18, Article
3.
27